The infamous British historian David Irving forgot
to remember what Oscar Wilde learned to his great
regret about libel actions: the existence of a defence. Mr.
Irving contested allegations that he purposefully distorted
history to serve his deeply anti-Semitic views. This week in
London, a judge concluded:

"The charges which I have found to be
substantially true include the charges that Mr. Irving
has for his own ideological reasons persistently and
deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical
evidence; that for the same reason he has portrayed
Hitler in an unwarrantedly favourable light, principally
in relation to his attitude toward and responsibility for
the treatment of the Jews; that he is an active Holocaust
denier; that he is anti-Semitic and racist and that he
associates with right-wing extremists who promote
neo-Nazism."

If Mr. Irving has faced repeated allegations that his
history is bunk, he now has the confirmation of a court on
the matter. And he has a court order to pay $4.5-million in
costs for the honour.

All this is very good, but it is important to note that
Mr. Irving has not been found guilty of a crime in the
United Kingdom. Rather, the object of his suit, U.S. author
Deborah Lipstadt, has been found innocent of libel in
calling Mr. Irving to account. Ms. Lipstadt was
understandably elated at the trial's outcome, which cements
Mr. Irving's darkened reputation. At the same time, she
opposes the route chosen by Canada, Germany and Switzerland,
of criminalizing what Mr. Irving says and writes about the
Holocaust. "I don't think those laws really work. They tend
to make martyrs of the deniers."

Indeed they do. Free societies exist on the premise that
freedom of thought and expression are fundamental human
rights. They are not granted by the state, and do not exist
at the pleasure of the state. More, freedom of thought and
expression are essential to the progress of society, to the
democratic process and to the liberty of individuals. Most
other legal and political rights depend for their very
existence on free expression.

Individuals being what they are, however, free expression
sometimes leads to distortions, lies and malicious
statements. How should we deal with them in the context of a
fundamental human right?

Happily, the best means is free expression itself to
reply, remonstrate, argue and refute. Free expression offers
the cure to its own disease because truth ultimately
prevails in fair battles against lies. Democracies cannot
effectively function without this faith.

Libel laws create a legal avenue of defence for those who
feel personally harmed by free expression, who lack faith in
the efficacy of public reply and desire a more formal,
third-party accounting of the truth. Too many people resort
to libel too easily, and Mr. Irving chose this means to
defend himself against Ms. Lipstadt, only to find that he
had no defence.

The creation by the state of criminal prohibitions
against the expression of opinions that offend or incite
hatred and contempt without specific calls to action brings
far too great a formal power to bear against far too
fundamental a human right. Criminalization of an honestly
held opinion contradicts the very core of free expression
and undermines the authority of a democracy. As Ms. Lipstadt
notes, it serves to drive corrosive views underground where
the normal correctives of a free society cannot come into
play, and where prior state restraint fuels the paranoia so
often involved.

Mr. Irving has hanged himself, by far the most effective
form of punishment, and exceedingly well deserved. He should
not be barred from Canada or prosecuted for expressing his
ridiculous views here. Faith in free speech has been
sustained.